# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Easter v. Gates (No. 560) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386418_1591%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1957 ## Text +) INDEX TO PETITION | Pace fT 1 SURISDICTION 2...e...ccccccsssseeeeees Lae ane nee 2 QUESTIONS PRESENTED |..00.---n-sssssssssssssseeseesoee 2 GICNERAL STATEMENT. ..0.0.....000....scccccsccsccccssssssssssseeeee 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS... 7 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 11 I, Material Issues of Fact Presented By the -Peti- tioner Were Not Considered ~........................0.-0----- A. The court should not direct a verdict unless the evidence upon any issue is all on one side or so overwhelmingly ow one side as to leave no room for doubt as to what the evi- I ccacttsenseincsinsspcitecsiaeestibeenenecelitieantautahinpiaieiiivalaes 11 Il.| A Statutory Right of the Petitioner Was Denied | In Separating Him From His Position With ee are 17 A. The Court erred in granting the respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment in granting it on the grounds that the petitioner had not been denied any statutory right, the, peti- tioner having been denied a statutory right in that the removal was arbitrary ................ 17 III. The Petitioner’s Claim Was Not Barred By NS sechersstlettinii ti hencinthicessssdenieaianiiiiaiReinicabtaabianintines 23 A. The sotitionns was not guilty of any delay or action that could be deemed to be laches I a 28 INDEX TO APPENDICES Petitioner’s Schedule of Performances and Index of ae Cone a 1A Petitioner’s Schedule of Performances and Index of INTE UE lischeisetie csicesonsececneninslicnnensanntivnnsiteniitacains 1B TABLE OF CASES i, Pace ATLANTIC CARRIERS vs. U.S. 41 U.S.C.A. § 321, 131 Fr. Supp. 1 -n.nn..----n---nseceecoeessessneseaseensentennnsensennsenatens 6 BLACKMAR vs. UNITED STATES 128 ¢. Cis. 693, 190 F. Supp. 408 .......... a! ae BORAK vs. BIDDLE 78 US app. D. C. 374, 141 BR Dd BB nnnvencnnnceonono-n-nenvnoevensnenececnrnoneeh 19 DEAKE vs. Pace 88 U. S. App. D.C. 50, 185 F. 2d IT oan cnncneneceneceescnssoresnencssroscorensncnneensescoonoscnsnenfoonee 19 EASTER vs. KIMBALL United States District Court for the District of Columbia, C. A. 1307-52 ........ 2, 7-9, 17-25, 27 GARDNER vs. PANAMA RAILROAD CO. 341 U.S. A anne ccncnnennecenneonenscareensnecvsnsnenesescwsneeseocsnenseneraseceooes 26 MULLIGAN vs. ANDREWS 93 U. S. App. D. ©. 375, 211 F. 2d es Sener 19 NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. THOMPSON 281 U.S. 331. .....-.-----------1----0--eeeeerte 25 PELTIER vs. SEATON U.S. App. D.C. “No. 13370 decided May 23, 1957 .......-..------------ss-csssereeersestte 26 POWELL’vs. BRANNAN 91 US. App. D.C. 16, 196 P. 0 Git ....... lt lacnatipianeethincennentenetecmnmsatan 18 ROTH vs. SWANSON 145 F. 2d 262 .-.....-...--.------------- 11 SNYDER vs. BUCK, 340 US. 15 -.....-.---------------seeeee 26 STRINGER vs. U.S. 90 F. Supp. 375 117 CL. C. 130 19 TELLEZ vs. CANTON RAILROAD, Md. Daily Rec- ord May 20, 1957 .......----------s-sssccesessseetessoneeneneetestesens 11 STATUTES “ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT” Public Law 404 79th Congress Chapter 324—2d Session S.7-AN ACT to improve the administration of Page justice by prescribing fair administrative pro- ACER ONE Site aren Seo NS RRR 7 Pg. 8—(e) Scopgz or Review.—So far as aeces- sary to decision and where presented the re- viewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the mean- ing or applicability of the terms of any agency action. It shall (A) compel agency action un- lawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (B) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be (1) arbi- trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) con-. trary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (3) in excess of statutory juris- diction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (4) without observance of pro- cedure required by law; (5) unsupported by substantial evidence in any case subject to the requirements of sections 7 and 8 or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or (6) unwarranted by the facts to the extent *that the facts are sub- ject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations the court shall review the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. “La Follette-Lloyd Act” of Augtst 24, 1912”, Amended by Public Law 623 80th Congress Chap- ter 447, 2d Session S. 1486 an act to provide for payment of salaries covering periods of sepa- ration from the Government service in the case of persons improperly removed from such serv- ener ipiinninsssaan kininase hice lela aoapsaneaiotaabeakeinscic 7,18 % Iv Page OTHER SOURCES OB U.S.C. § 1254 (1) enviziecnesloceccereeneenenneenernetnernemnennea 2 Rule 12 (a) FRCP. .....-.-----o---sce-sccreerrrte 7 Rule 25 (d) F.R.C.P.........---------s--sscesreseesnesset 8, 25 Navy Civilian Personnel Instructions, NCP 1 5-1, The Warning ....-.--.-------0------c-cee-sensscnssenssennssessconennstens 6 In Tos Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1957 No. Awnprew J. Easter, Petitioner, | v. Tomas S. Gates, Jz., Secretary of the Navy, Respondent. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE _UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT 3F COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Petitioner prays that a Writ of Certiorari issue to re- view the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit entered in the above case on January 20, 1957, and the order of said Court entered on July 24, 1957, denying a petition for rehearing. OPINIONS BELOW The order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denying respondent’s motion for summary judgment and granting petitioner leave to file an amended complaint was filed on October 28, 1952, C. A. No. 1307-52 * (Pet. App. 4A) the suit was abated by con- sent and dismissed March 9, 1954 (Pet. pet. p. 8). The reinstituting of this case, C.A. No. 1174-54, with the con- * Judge Youngdahl: “J think under a e circumstances in a case of this nature the Court should grant summary judgment, but should let it go to trial.” (Pet‘ . pg. 22) 2 - gent of counsel, was on March 19, 1954.¢ (Pet. brief app. 2A). The order of Court was filed on June 26, 1956, grant- ing respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Pet. App. 6A). The motion to set aside the order and reinstate cause was denied October 1, 1956 (Pet. App. 7A). The Court - of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court on June 20, 1957, (Pet. App. 9A) and the petition for rehearing was denied July 24, 1957 (Pet. App. 10A). ° JURISDICTION The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Dis- trict of Columbia Circuit was made on June 20, 1957, a copy thereof is appended to this petition in the ap- pendix at page 9A. An order denying, the petition for rehearing appears in the appendix at page 104A. The jurisdiction of this Court is envoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (1). QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Was the evidence so one-sided as to justify sum- mary judgment for the respondent, or did there exist any substantial issue of material fact? II. Was petitioner’s removal legal and valid? Ill. Did the Court below err in granting the respond- ent’s motion for summary judgment on the respondent’s claim that the action was barred by laches? GENERAL STATEMENT ~ 1. Petitioner has diligently sought redress in this case. * Twice within this period, on March 25, 1952, C.A. No. 1307-52 was filed and dismissed by consent of counsel on March 9, 1954, and a new action was filed within ten days on March 19, 1954, C.A. No. 1174-54, also by consent of respondent’s counsel. t Brief (No. 13,631) for Appellant and Joint Appendix in the United States Court of Appeals filed herewith. *4 different Secretaries of the Navy, served during these pro- ceedings, which made it necessary for the petitioner to file 2 actions and 2 separate motions to ‘substitute party defendant. pee ‘ Metis” He eS rs 3 The petitioner has been an employee of the Depart- ment of Navy for about fifteen years’in addition to other experience in private ship yards including his services in © World War I. On December 9/1920, the petitioner was employed at the Philadelphia Navy Yard as a Grade A draftaman, developing the 4rrangement plans for a 250 ton craneship and the conversion of a battle cruiser to an aircraft carrier, and resigned on November 11, 1921, due to disarmament. On January 9, 1928, he was appointed as a Design Draftsman, duties of a checker, y the Office of the Superintendent Constructor, Navy ‘Department, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he was transferred on September 11, 1928, to the Norfolk Navy Yard due to lack of work. There he made arrangement.plans for the mod- _ ernization of a battleship and upon completion, resigned April 12, 1929. January 16,1939, the petitioner was em- ployed by the Bureau of Construction and Repair of the Navy Department, War Plans Section 456, Washington, D.C. as a Chief Engineering Draftsman SP-8, to prepare con- fidential contract plans for the conversion of merchant vessels to naval auxiliaries, etc. During his employment he made advancement and rendered outstanding services by reason of his efficiency ratings and particularly his record in the design and production of plans (Pet. Brief bottom of p. 15) where uncontested records show he de- vised, planned and drew the first or Basic plans of most of the naval auriliaries, und at least 73% of the design work and 50% of the actual production as key engineer in a section of eight men assigned to the same work, and who originally worked overtime, evenings, Saturdays and Sun- days without compensatory pay, and more particularly his beneficial suggestion of a “Merchant Naval Vessel” (Pet. brief p. 14- 2d para.) which was submitted about June 20, 1940, to the Navy Department and was used as the basic principal for the design and conversion of a tanker to an All emphasis supplied unless otherwise indicated. 4 auxiliary aircraft carrier, later known as the Baby Flat Top which is still in operation in the United States Navy, and the adoption of the idea by the British Admiralty for the design and construction of their Merchant Aircraft Carriers used in World War II (see Petitioner’s brief page 40A para: 13 and Pet. app. p. 10B, 14B-15B, 17B. On Jiré 25, 1941, petitioner submitted to the Navy Department for consideration an All Purpose Ship via , beneficial suggestion (Pet. app. 17B) and at this time the agency was designated as the Bureau of Ships, Con- version Section 459 and petitioner was promoted to an Associate. Engineer (N.A.) P-3, and continued to design and prepared contract plans for naval use until Septem- ber 24, 1942, when he was promoted to an Engineer (N.A.) P-4, during this period the petitioner was given a good plus or a-very good efficiency rating. On May 4, 1945, the petitioner was given a decision by the Ef- ficiency Rating Board of Review, Navy Department as a result of an appeal of a Very Good efficiency rating for 1944, adding element (10) (Presentation of ideas and facts) (Pet. app. 4B). Robert W. Bruce, the petitioners immediate supervisor had resented the above appeal, thereafter on@. GARDNER vs. PANAMA RAILROAD CO. 341 U. S. 934, 185 F.2d 730 (a) “It should not be determined merely by a reference to and a mechanical application of the statute of limita- tion, the equities of the parties must also be considered, p. 30-31. (b) Where there has been no inexcusable delay in seek- ing a remedy and where no prejudice to the defendant has ensued from mere passage of time, relief should not be denied on the ground of laches. p. 31. “There is no showing that respondent’s position has suffered.” PELTIER vs. SEATON U. S. Court of App. D. C. No. 13370-57 | “On the ground cf laches, the District Court rendered summary judgment for the defendants. In all the circum- stances we are unable to agree that the appellant was guilty of laches. We think the amended complaint and the answer, and the conflicting affidavits raise tssues which should be resolved. . \ 27 Also see respondent’s brief in court below, bottom of page 10, “on the other hand, if the plaintiff had substi- tuted party defendant within the time allowed—, he would not have been met with the plea of laches despite any Government delay.” Nor, could the respondent claim that failure to substitute . had been detrimental to the Government because the affi- davit of the petitioner’s counsel (Pet. brief, app. p. 35A) clearly shows that for the greater part of the period in question the petitioner was employed at a salary greater then that he had received as a government employee, and that time was not detrimental to the government except for the loss by the government of the services of the peti-- tioner who was rated a P-5 in 1946 (Pet. brief, app. 45A) yet was doing meritorious services beyond his rank and duties for a P-3 (Trans. p. 122), Transcript of Removal Hearing 17 April 1951] “Easter can do this job better than any of us, be- cause he knows ships. He knows drafting. This ts rare, in my opinion, in the stability section.” See (Pet. pet. p. 12) p. 19 “We are having difficulty filling our vacancies”, p. 42—“We can’t get people” (Pet. pet. p. lo, p. 36) Do vou have a surplus of engineer employees? There is a scarcity. Very scarce? Yes. (A) Procedure is better presented by the Schedule of Performances and Index of Cases (Pet. app. 1A) (B) It is definitely clear that the course (Schedule of Performances and Index of Cases) will emphasize the mis- take Judge Letts made when he granted summary judg- ment to the respondent as to laches, as to the time ele- ment, the time lapsing between the dismissal of the one suit C.A. No. 1307-52 and the filing of the instant suit C.A. No. 1174-54, it was a matter of only ten days and both with the consent and cooperation of respondent’s 28 counsel. See Petitioner’s brief 43A, 5-6. The Court: “She is talking about the time that has elapsed after the dis- missal of this case and the bringing of a new one.” Also see Transcript of Proceedings dated June 25, 1956. (C) The consent of respondent’s counsel was further substantiated when the third Secretary was made Party Defendant July 8, 1954, (Pet. app. 5A) and again on April 26, 1957, the fourth Secretary was substituted by consent (Pet. app. 8A) by declaring that there was a substantial need for continuing and maintaimeng this action, Altho the Government is actually the client of the Solicitor Gencral . . . When the personnel actions of Breinert B. Madsen and Charles L. Wright against the petitioner are weighted against Wright’s and the other's testimony it is obvious that, all was of a personal matter (Pet. pet., bottom of pg. 12) devised to further their advancement or was by direction, (Pet. pet., bottom pg. 13) as-they now hold high positions in the Navy Depart- ment. yet neither has the integrity, ba¢kground (s#e Pet. app. 1UB, 15B, 17B-19B, initiative, foresight or experience of the petitioner. The present administrative and Judicial procedures and/or appeals are not corrective or effective, that is why this case is here now. CONCLUSION For the foregoing easons this petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, (rko. WASHINGTON WILLIAMS, attorney for Petitioner 3431 St. Paul Place, altimore 2, Marviaad. Anprew J. Faster, In Proper Person 2801 Adams Mili Road, N. W., Washington 9, D. C., Apt. 10s, On the Petitioner, Petitioner. : 1A PETITIONER’S SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCES AND INDEX OF CASES TO APPENDIX A JUDICIAL PROCEDURE: United States District Court for the District of Colum- bia, Andrew J. Easter vs. Dan A. Kimbel, Secretary of Navy, C.A. No. 1307-52 + March 25, 1952, Petitioner's Complaint July 7, 1952, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss July 7, 1952, Respondent's Points and Authorities and Exhibit 1-13 ’ August 5, 1952, Stipulation of Andrew J. Easter August 18, 1952, Petitioner's Objections to Respond- ent’s Motion, with Points and Authorities + October 15, 1952, Hearing before Judge Youngdahl (See Official Transcript. of Proceedings) + October 28, 1952, Order: Respondent's Motion Denied, Leave for Petitioner to File an Amended Com- November 12, 1952, Amended Complaint filed January 19, 1953, Dan A. Kimbel, Secretary of Navy Resigned February 4, 1953, Robert B. Anderson cppointed Sec- retary of Navy + April 7, 1953, Fespondent's Answer to Petitioner's Complaint which was filed March 25, 1952 February 19, 1954, Motion to Dismiss: by Consent + March 9, 1954, Order; by Consent United States District Court for the District of Colum- bia, Andrew J. Easter vs. Robert B. Anderson, Secre- , of Navy, C.A: 1174-54 + March 19, 1954, Petitioner's Complaint filed: by consent Mas 2, 1954, Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of Navy, resigned + Pertinent incidents. + Decisive incident. Page 4A Refer to the original records filed in this proceeding for all other’ actions and/or Petitioner's brief filed herewith. > 2A May 3, 1954, Charles S. Thomas, appointed Secretary of Navy July 8, 1954, Petitioner’s Motion to substitute party defendant filed July 8, 1954, *Order substituting party defendant: ND I oss ceeesisancsina ssc cctngeninsecpenmnenndonenssvqenintientenmnannenss ; September 27, 1954, Respondent’s answer to sania January 13, 1956, Pre-trial proceedings February 8, 1956, Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment, with Points & Authorities and Exhibits 1-13 April 18, 1956, Petitioncr’s Objections to Respondent's Motion, with Points and Authorities + April 18, 1956, Affiday’ of Petitioner + April 18, 1956, Affidavit of Petitioner’s Counsel + April 27, 1956, | Supplemental Affidavit of Petitioner's Counsel + June 25, 1956, Transcript of proceeding on motion for summary judgment June 26, 1956, Order granting sien saa Motion for Summary Judgment July 5, 1956, Petitioner's Motion to Set Aside Order and Reinstate Case October 1, 1956, Order Denying Motion October 29, 1956, Notice of Appeal United States Court of Appeals for the District of Co- lumbia Circuit, October Term 1956. Andrew J. Easter vs. Charles S. Thomas, Secretary of Navy, No. 13,631 April 1, 1957, Charles S. Thomas, Secretary of Navy, resigned April 1, 1957, Thomas S. Gates, Jr., appointed Secre- tary of Navy April 4, 1947, Petitioner's Motion to ilahteute party defendant April 11, 1957, Order denying above motion without prejudice, with leave to renew for “reasons” *3rd Secretary of Navy, Ist Motion to substitute party defendant Page 5A 6A 7A 3A Page April 25, 1957, Petitioner’s Motion to substitute party defendant: by consent April 26, 1957, * Order substituting party defendant: i os ccettinmivenaboedadsbasseenensedtinn BA Andrew J. Easter vs. Thomas S. Gates, Jr., Secre- tary of the Navy, No. 13,631 June 20, 1957, poeerene Goer Greer ..... Decided June 20, 1957 Mr. George Washington Williams, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, for appellant. Andrew J. Raster, ap- pellant, filed a brief pro se. Mr. Hershel Shanks, Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom Assistant Attorney General Doub, and Messrs. Oliver Gasch, United States Attorney, and Paul A. Sweeney, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellee. Before Epcerton, Chief Judge, and Wirsur K. Mitter and DanaHeER, Circuit Judges. Per Cunt: The plaintiff, a former employee of the Navy Department, appeals from a summary judgment for the Secretary of the Navy in a suit to set aside the plaintiff's discharge from his employment. We find no error. Affirmed. ¢ 10 A Filed July 24, 1957 Joseph W. Stewart, Clerk ORDER Upon consideration of appellant's petition for a re- hearing in bane, it is OrpveRED by the Court that the petition be, and it is hereby, denied. Per Curiam. Dated: July 24, 1957. EXHIBIT 2 LL/EASTER/A.J. 26 March 1951 To: Andrew J. Easter, Code 444 Subj: Removal 1. The Bureau is at present considering + cious of your employment for cause. 2. The specific charges against you are: (1) Unsatis- factory performance (2) Insubordination (3) Disrespect- ful attitude toward supervision (4) Unreliable attendance and (5) your lack of interest in your work and the overall affect of your expressions upon the morale of other em- ployees. 3. Upon your assignment to the Stability Section in 1946, you were informed by memorandum that certain know- ledge was necessary to perform your assigned duties and you were further advised how that knowledge might be obtained. However, to the present date you have acquired so little of the knowledge specified, that you must be as- signed routine tasks and cannot be relied upon to satis- factorily complete a task within a reasonable time com- mensurate with your grade and salary. OG AO BP CO ke ot ate 1LA 4. Your insubordinate and disrespectful attitude toward your supervision has apparently continued for some time. Corrections of errors in your work have resulted in lengthy, heated, time consuming arguments with your su- pervisors, during which you have frequently, openly and loudly accused them of incapability. On other occasions you have refused to put forth a special effort to meet work deadlines on the claim that your special efforts in the past went unrewarded. You have refused to make modifica- tions on assigned work on the claim that the work should have been assigned correctly in the first place even though it was explained to you that later developments required that modifications be made. Discussions with your super- visors regarding your attitude have resulted on many oc- casions in threats made by you of law suits, appeals and physical violence. 5. You are frequently absent from vour desk without permission for long periods of time. From information received through various sources, it appears much of this time is spent merely visiting other sections of the Bureau to talk to other employees of your grievances against the Bureau and its personnel and to air your personal troubles. You have left business discussions in yor.r own section to pursue this activity of yours. You have frequently spent periods of time away from the building without permission. You apparently consider that your own personal matters take priority over your work assignments. It is con- sidered that vour lack of interest in your work and your penchant to speak adversely of the Bureau and its super- visors have a detrimental effect on other employees par- ticularly those unacquainted with the full situation. 6. In January 1951, upon being informed by your super- visor that you would be given an “U Msatisfactory” Per- formance Rating unless improvement was shown, you de- fiantly informed him that you were not making any effort to perform satisfactorily, had no intention of improving lA and that you hoped that the “Unsatisfactory” rating would bring to a “head” a matter with which you were concerned. Such attitude onthe part of any employee cannot be con- doned. nag 4. You have the privilege of replying in writing within five (5) days of the date of these charges to show cause as to why your services should not be terminated and to request a hearing if you so desire.. If you desire a hear- ing, you may be represented by any person of your choice and you may bring witnesses who have a direct kuowledge of the circumstances resulting in the preferral of those charges. | 8. Your reply must be in writing and must be received in Code 263 on or before‘close of business 2 April 1951. Fail- ure to reply or an unsatisfactory reply will result in your termination for cause, effective close of business 10 April 1951. H. N. Watlin Chief of Bureau “XHIBIT 3 6240 Belair Road Baltimore 6, Maryland April 2, 1951 Rear Admiral H. N. Wallin \ Chief of’ Bureau Bureau of Ships Department of the Navy Washington 25, D.C. Dear Sir: * Enclosed you will find my formai answer to your re- moval notice transmitted to me in Ivtter dated March 24, 1951. coo~ 13 A It is respectfully submitted to you for your careful and favorable consideration. Very truly yours, /s/ Awnprew J. Easter Andrew J. Easter AJE:1l EXHIBIT 5 Filed February 8, 1956 Code 263 3 Apr 1951 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Andrew J. Easter, Code 444 Subj: Removal Ref: (a) BuShips Itr of charges addressed to Andrew J. Easter dated 26 March 1951 Encl: Letter of appointmeut of hearing board 1. Inasmuch as your reply to Reference (a) is not con- sidered satisfactory, the hearing which you requested is 5 April 1951 C. J. CATER Captain, USN Assistant Chief of Bureau for Administration 14A 73 EXHIBIT 6 LL/Easter, A.J. 12 May 1951 From: Chief, Bureau of Ships To: Mr. Andrew J. Easter Subj: Removal Ref: (a) BuShips ltr of 26 Mar 1951 to A. J. Hester (b) A. J. Easter ltr of 2 Apr 1951 to Chief, Ba- Ships | \ 1. By reference (a) you were notified of the proposed action to terminate your employment for cause. By refer- ence (b) you replied to the charges contained in reference (a) and requested a hearing. A hearing was granted, a board was appointed by me to hold the hearing and make recommendations to me and hearings were held on 5, 9, 10, 17 and 18 April 1951. I have considered all of the facts presented in your case and hereby notify you that you will be removed for cause effective close of business 14 May 1951. 2. You may continue in an active duty status until that time provided your conduct and performance permit. 3. You have the right to appeal this action to the Under Secretary of the Navy via the Chief, Bureau of Ships with- in ten (10) days from this date. H. N. Wallin Chief of Dureau 15 A ‘EXHIBIT 7 Washington, D.C. May 18, 191 From: Mr. Andrew J. Easter To: Chief, Bureau of Ships Subj: Removal Ref: (a) BuShips Itr of 26 Mar 1951 to A. J. Easter (b) A. J. Easter Itr of 2 Apr 1951 to Chief, BuShips (c) BuShips letter 12 May 1951 1. By reference (c) the Busships notified the undersigned that he was removed for cause effective 14 May 1991. °, Paragraph 3, reference (c) advises that the under- signed has the right to appeal this action to the Under Secretary of the Nevy, via the: Chief, Bureau of Ships, within ten (10) days from this date. 3. Reference (c) was personally delivered to the under- signed at 1500 hours 14 May 1991. 4. Subsequent to the delivery of reference (c) the under- signed requested a copy of Record of Hearing and copies of all exhibits submitted at said. Hearing, cited in Par. 1, ref. (c). The copy of Record was delivered but copies of exhibits were not. ‘Nhe exhibits are necessary in order to properly prepare my dppeal to higher eschelons. 5. The undersigned by this letter exercises his right and notifies the Chief, Bureau of, Ships, that said appeal is taken. He requests that all records 5 prepared and for- warded in compliance with the provisions of NCPI-80, Grievances and Comphaints. | .-/s/ Anprew J. Easter Andrew J. Easter t Appellant UC: Under Secretary, Navy OIR Code 220 Pentagon , » Washingten 25, D.C. a 16A 76 EXHIBIT 9 : , 28 Nov 1951 My Dear Mr. Easter: This is in reply to your appeal from removal action taken by the Bureau of Ships and is the final action in connection with your appeal. The entire record in con- _ nection with your case has been carefully reviewed and considered. Each of the charges is supported by compe- tent evidence, both documentary and oral, and it is clearly established that the penalty of removal is appropriate. Your appeal, therefore, is denied. Very truly yours, Francis P. Whitehair Under Secretary of the Navy | | | o> & x setae teltle. 1B PETITIONER’S SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCES AND INDEX TO APPENDIX B _ Knud H. Christensen’s letter-................-----------------1-1 ere Report of Efficiency Rating..............------------------ rr Notice of Decision, Efficiency Rating Board of Review.......... Admiral W. F. Halsey’s Letter..............---------------------r Sherman Adams, Assistant to General Eisenhower, letter... Department of Defense Appropriations Hearing: Petition- er’s Statement Re - “Baby Flat Top”, “Merchant Naval Vessel Plan” Military Security Without Cost.:...............--- Efficiency Rating Board of Review “So-Called All-Purpose BI oonscnenneenennsinsniseennnivtncanennancveveeesnentonssnsnnmenegicaennsinersenteieinns Comments from Various Military Agencies ref. “Combined Merchant Naval Vessel” .............--------------eerere Petitioner’s Schedule of Performance and “Combined Mer- chant Naval Vessel” ............-.------:-:--:-c-ceeseeceseest ceeeeenenetetee cReOU .. nana nn .n-nnc nn enecnnnenessnnnneneevensennsesteonensemenntecnepnacnesosens Page 2B APPENDIX B 1927 - 38th Street, N. W. Washington 7, D.C. November 20th, 1953 To whom it may concern, I have worked together with Andrew J. Easter for several years, from about 1945 to his dismissal from the Bureau of Ships. In my opinion he is an excellent and productive worker. Mr. Easter has strong mdividual views with respect to truth and justice as he sees it, and I feel that his long drawn-out discussion with the management on such points of principle, in which he had become involved, was the underlying reason for his eventual dismissal from the Federal Service. The above remarks on Mr. Easter’s controversy with the Bureau >f Ships are entirely those of a spectator. /s/ Knud H. Christensen Naval Architect + apne 7 3B Fe Seen. co-neres. ©. 8 CIVIL GERVIOB COMmcnasIes ei EPORT ADMIT ATTV-ONONTECT AS -R OF | mecuLaR (X ) ePeciaL ¢ EFFICIENCY RATING PROBATIONAL ¢ >) be of 979 1-50 .. based om performance daring period trom M149 9g 231-0 E,STER, andrew J. Eng. Nav. arch. GS-3 | aes i (Tithe of position, servies, and grade) __ SHIPS CODE bits (Organisation-—Indioate buresn, division. section, unit, fiakd station” OM LINES BELOW a eee Se Rang Cis Salt, G. &. C. Ferm CHECK OMB: ;: ee Administrative, dies Se itaate ta Eadie cnaeet Der enategese bn chute supervisory, oF ~ te me i sagen 1 ence + i outstanding * elements in italics. . All others... | __. (1) Maintenance of equipment, tools, instruments. _. (2) Mechanical skill. -.. (8) Skill in the application of techniques and pro- | of work ~—%.. (4) Presentability of . (app — —_%. (5) Attention to broad phases of assignments. ot (6) Attention to pertinent detail. ——— (7) Accuracy of operations. ZZ .(8) Accuracy of final results, -aZ. (9) Accuracy of judgments or decisions. _x.(10) Effectiveness in presenting ideas or facts. (11) Industry. - : ~*.G2), Bate. of progress on or completion of assign- — 00 ARSE ekeain Tents Ome —-(14) Ability to organise his work, 1.(15) Effectiveness in meeting and dealing with ‘ | ,t-(18) Cooperativencss. — (17) Initiative. ~..(18) Resourcefulness. of ar (20) Physica] fitness for the work. STANDARD Devietto ne mast be explained on reverse vide of this forre op. ere! eo cee « & —— (1) Maintenance of equipment, tools, instruments. ~~ — (2) Mechanical skill. — . ff aX (8) Skill in the application of techniques and pro- —. (4) Presen of . (4) mye Ra ome ll —. (5) Attention to broad phases of assignments. . ~t... (6) Attention to pertinent detail. —— (7) Accuracy of operations, ZZ (8) Accuracy of final results, aL. (9) Accuracy of judgments or decisions. -7.(10) Effectiveness in presenting ideas or facts. (11) Industry. —t..(12) Rate of progress on or completion of (18) Amount Oy “Teeed en puodecion see ne nt —-(14) Ability to organise hiswork, 9 “"*™ .(15) Effectiveness in meeting and dealing with (18) Cooperativeness. (17) Initiative, ~..(18) Resourcefulness, - . ~Z.(19) Dependability. ( O2amdamen mat 2omnndondy —® ——(20) Physical fitness for the work. o STANDARD Deviations must be explained os, reverve sidc of this forra -i2.(19) Dependability. ( OXterJaner mek conmdeud) — mem (85) MGectivencee to —— (81) Effectiveness in planning broad programs. — mo yh ts 5h ata ~-. (28) Effectiveness in devising procedures. —— (24) Effectiveness in laying out work and establish- tng standards of performance for subordé- ww. (85) Effectiveness in , reviewing, aud check- the work of aaa X cee on neers © sete, me —— (87) ee ee ~~ (88 (88) aa et — adher- cn) peat, sag so ietine - ememee (80) Ability to make decisions. ~~ (81) EF a ooo STATE ANY OTHER ELEMENTS CONSIDERED ve -4/ = . warvine, ——- ($1) Seed ate én glanning brend gregeane. — (28) footivensss in adapting the work pregram te ——- (28) Effectiveness in devising procedures. —— (24) Effectiveness in laying out work end establich- ng standards of performance for suboerdé- ig reef eerdactne e —— (86) Effectiveness in > txstructing, training, and | ig subordinates in the work. —— (37) Effectiveness in promoting high working morals. ———- (88) Effectiveness in - ha determining. space, personnel, ——- (89) Effectiveness in setting obtaining adher- , anes to time limite ont dentine i ogg gag oa ; aun ectivencss in delegating clearly Va —. (A) dl Plus , on all underlined marks elements, and check marks or better on all rated Rating Excellent Check marks half of the underlined better on all elements and plus ee ae) rated, an plus marks on at least —} ‘= Check marks or better on a majority of underlined elements, and all weak performance overcompensated by outstanding performance. ery Cong Check marks or better on a majority of underlined elements, and all weak not overcompensated by outstanding performance. Minus marks on at least half of the underlined elements. she 4B OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN eres EFFICIENCY RATING / BOARD OF REVIEW * NAVY DEPARTMENT Washington 25, D.C. Docket No.: D-3520-44 NOTICE OF DECISION Appellant: Mr. Andrew J. Easter Classification Grade: P-4 Organization Unit: Bureau of Ships~ Efficiency rating as of: March 31, 1944 _ appealed: Very Good determined: Very Good Date of Decision: May 4, 1945 Oral Hearing: April 27, 1945 and May 4, 1945 Mr. Warren McLaine Board of Review Members: _ Mr. Anthony J. Oliver Mr. George W. Metzger Kmployee Representative: Mr. David R. Glass Department Representative : Special Department Representative: Mr. Donald M. Brown Lt. L. D. McCord Witnesses: Mr. Robert W. Bruce Mr. S. B. Crosby Capt. A. Sledge SUMMARY OF FACTS After thorough consideration of all the information presented in this case, the Board of Review finds as follows: 5B 1. The appealed rating covers appellant’s perform- ance as Engineer (Naval Architect), grade P-4, for the period from April 1, 1943 to March 31, 1944. 2. The following duties and responsibilities are set forth in appellant’s official job description : “Under general supervision with responsibility for developing designs and general arrangements required for the conversion of merchant vessels to naval aux- iliaries : After conducting extensive engineering investiga- tions and utilizing the original plans of the par- ticular vessel as constructed, develops complete designs of hull arrangements required in order to convert merchant and other vessels to troop trans- ports, repair ships, hospital ships, landing boat carrying vessels, mine layers, gun boats, ete. These designs are prepared with special attention to incorporation of various features required in order to comply with safety and performance standards established by the Navy but at the same time to permit the conversion to be completed with a minimum of expense and delay. Makes the more difficult calculations and utilizes extensive knowl- edge of Naval architecture in preparing complete layouts and details of the arrangements for gun replacements, ammunition storage facilities, officer and crew quarters, deck fixtures, sounding rooms, navigational facilities, ete; supervises lower grade engineers and draftsmen as required in completing various phases of the work; assumes responsibility for hull designs of entire ships assigned to this incumbent for conversion. Examines plans received from Maritime Commis- sion and shipyards making recommendations con- cerning various huli design features required in order to place a vessel in service to perform a particular function as a naval auxiliary.” 6B 3. No change is made in the following element pattern which was used by the department in evaluating appel- lant’s performance (with the department’s evaluations indicated): Elements No. 3, Skill in the application of techniques and procedures (\/); 4, Presentability of work (V); 6, Attention to pertinent detail (Vv); 8, Accuracy of final results (V); 9, Accuracy of judgments or deci- sions (Vv); 10, Effectiveness in presenting ideas or facts (Vv); 11, Industry (+); 12, Rate of progress on or com- pletion of assignments (+); 16, Cooperativeness (+); 18, Resourcefulness (+); and 19, Dependability (Vv). 4. Appellant was usually thorough in his designs and drafting work. In the conversion of merchant vessels to Navy auxiliaries it was necessary to see that all the re- quirements of the Navy Department were met. These requirements were established and varied according to the type of vessel desired and the complement of men assigned to such vessel. Appellant took these factors into consideration and his finished work product was usually accurate. Appellant’s contention that he was the lead man on all the new designs was not supported by the information presented. Appellant was given the responsibility of drawing up preliminary plans for certain new conver- sions and he usually performed such assignments in a satisfactory manner. However, other naval architects in his section were also assigned to this work. 0. Appellant’s contention that he had to be outstand- ing on Element No; 6 to perform the preliminary design work is without merit since any fully qualified naval architect familiar with Navy procedure on conversion of merchant vessels was able to, and did, perform such de- sign work. 6. Appellant was a dtuigent worker and had the abil- ity to perform his work m a rapid manner, The pro- duction records introduced by the department cannot be “ee 7B accepted as conclusive evidence of appellant’s produc- tivity since these records do not reflect all of the work performed by appellant. In addition, the work of the section was not sufficiently heavy to provide appellant with a steady flow of work at all times. Appellant never missed a deadline on any work assigned to him. When it was necessary for him to work overtime to complete a specific assignment he was willing to work overtime to complete it. This necessity did not occur frequently. 7. Appellant was always willing to carry out instruc- tions and assist in the completion of the work of his section. He could be relied upon to perform his work in a creditable manner. His attendance record was not good. Since appellant did not live in the city, it was not always convenient for him to, nor did he always, secure prior approval of leave. However, these absences were not shown to have too seriously affected his work. 8. Appeliant was most effective in suggesting possible series of arrangements in the layout of plans where the established methods could not be followed precisely in particular cases. He was also adept in suggesting ways and means of converting vessels with the minimum amount of alterations to ®xisting vessels, thus contributing to the reduction of costs involved in the conversion. 9. No change is made in the evaluation of any of the pertinent or especially important elements. DECISION On the basis of the above findings, the Board of Review renders the following decision: The efficiency rating of “Very Good” is affirmed. By direction of the Board of Review: /s/ Gerorce W. METZGER George W. Metzger, Chairman 8B D9 March i945. Mr. Andrew J. Easter 6420 Belair Road, | Baltimore, Maryland. . My dear Mr. Easter: I take pleasure in acknowledging the receipt of your most interesting plan for a special combat carrier, and even more, I feel that your interest and effort are most commendable American gestures. I have turned your plan over to the General Board of the Navy as the proper agency to study the aetails of your proposed ship in the light of global strategy and the future trend of the war. At the same time I am requesting the Board to advise you as may be ap- propriate concerning the findings and opinions. Very sincerely, - 1/3/ W. F. Halsey OFFICE OF DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER “\ Commodore Hotel New York 17, New York December 31,1952 Dear Mr. Easter: General Eisenhower has asked me to acknowledge vour - letter of December 29th. He deeply appreciates vour interest in improving our ship designs. Inasmuch as this is General Eisenhower’s personal head- quarters, and has only a small staff, we do not have the necessary facilities for giving your proposal the proper technical analysis at this time. I suggest you submit this matter to the Navy Department after the new Administration takes office. At that time it will be possible to give it the thorough study which it appears to deserve. SCM AM, ata daphne, Ax \| . | 9B The continued success of our efforts will depend on the interest and participation of every thinking citizen. We are happy to know we can count on you. Sincerely yours, /s/ SHERMAN ADAMS Sherman Adams Assistant to General Eisenhower Mr. Andrew J. Easter 6420 Belair Road Baltimore 6, Maryland Yen Petitioner note Jan. 16/39-57—Diary and various other legislative committees on atomic, military and/or naval affairs, all of which was instituted on the petitioner’s own time and expense. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386418_1591%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.